The Patriots

by Buck Throckmorton

This is a straight news story from The Tennessean, Nashville’s far-left daily newspaper. What’s peculiar is that this reads pretty much like those “conspiracy theories” about Dominion’s voting system that I’ve read at conservative news sites.

Here’s Why Williamson County Is Switching To New Voting Machines After State Review (The Tennessean – 3/04/2022)

Williamson County [suburban Nashville] will use new voting machines in its 2022 election cycle following vote tabulation discrepancies found during the October election.

Oh really? Vote tabulation discrepancies? What voting system were they using?

In August 2021, Dominion Voting Systems programmed machines for the county's upcoming elections. But the company did not account for the new voting centers, so the Williamson County Election Commission asked Dominion to reprogram the machines.

Hold on just a moment here. I’ve been reliably told – ad nauseum in fact - that it’s a paranoid right-wing conspiracy to believe that Dominion voting machines can be programmed in any way that might not properly count and tabulate ballots.

Following the election that October, vote tabulations on the printed tapes from seven of the 19 scanners used did not match up with the tabulations that were electronically transmitted.

Wow. So votes in Williamson County were cast on Dominion machines, the printed read-out of votes cast at each machine were all totaled up, and that grand total did not match the grand total that Dominion’s system reported from its electronic tabulation of vote totals.

Election reviewers attempting to replicate the error suggested that the seven faulty election machines were running on older firmware, which likely caused the error.

I wonder if any of those massive, middle-of-the-night, rounded-to-the-nearest-100,000 ballot dumps we saw on Election Night 2020 were simply caused by “older firmware.”

Meeting minutes show commissioners were concerned Dominion had not been forthcoming about why seven of the 19 voting machines were not fully updated, with Election Administrator Chad Gray saying the company was "evasive and unresponsive in identifying the root cause.”

Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be allowing an “evasive and unresponsive” company with a flawed voting system to tabulate ballots.

Yes To Paper Ballots, But They Open The Door To Voting Suppression

With the risk of fraud associated with electronic voting, and the accompanying lack of actual ballots to hand count if necessary, there is an emerging consensus on the right that we need to move back to 100% paper ballots. I agree.

But that doesn’t mean there should be any less diligence in fighting ballot fraud. Paper-only ballots invite the possibility of voter suppression by not having enough ballots.

Until early voting and electronic voting machines came along in the late 20th century, it was effectively a policy in Travis County, Texas (Austin) that the Democrats who ran the county wouldn’t provide enough ballots for conservative precincts.

If you recall, this was the same corrupt Travis County political machine that had its District Attorney regularly bring bogus indictments against prominent Texas politicians who were adversaries of the state’s liberal Democrat establishment. Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rick Perry, Tom Delay, and Democrat Jim Mattox (an adversary of Ann Richards) were all indicted, without any convictions. But the process was the punishment. Those bogus indictments had a political impact on every one of them.

The way the vote suppression in Travis County worked was that the county elections administrator was only required to provide enough ballots to each precinct in accordance with historical countywide turnout. So, if countywide turnout averaged 50%, a Republican precinct that averaged 70% turnout would only get enough ballots for 50% of its registered voters. Meanwhile, a South Austin precinct that only averaged 30% turnout would have an abundance of excess ballots.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but that should not be happening in our elections.

Another technique that was employed to suppress Republican votes was to provide too few voting booths. I recall one time in the late ‘80s waiting hours in line to vote, because there were only four voting booths at my precinct. Watching the news that evening, a local TV journalist reported on light voter turnout, while standing in front of a Democrat-leaning polling site with about a dozen voting booths in the background.

This Republican voter suppression was routinely discussed on at least one morning drive-time radio show at the time, and plenty of people wrote letters to the editor about it, but it persisted until early voting and electronic ballots came along, making it impossible to run out of ballots any longer.

Don’t misunderstand, I am strongly in favor of paper-only ballots, and also eliminating the fraud-riddled mess of mail-in ballots for those who can vote in person, but there is still plenty of opportunity for fraud with paper ballots. The good news is that Democrats can suppress fewer votes with paper ballots than they can create with digital ballot box stuffing.

by Joe Hoft

A group of Wisconsin activists announced their intent to remove every single Wisconsin politician who votes against decertifying the 2020 Election results in the state. 

The group ‘Wisconsin Citizens Demanding Election Security’ has announced their plans to remove from office every politician who votes against decertifying the 2020 Election in the state.  The group shared:

Below is their press release:

WI Open Letter Press Release 3.10.22 by Jim Hoft on Scribd

WISCONSIN CITIZENS  DEMANDING ELECTION INTEGRITY

by Emerald Robinson

There are so many newsworthy details contained in the just-released Wisconsin Special Counsel Report on the 2020 Election that it’s hard to know where to begin. Every American citizen should read this report because it explains how the election was stolen by Democrats. That alone makes it worthwhile.

Let’s start with this story:

The OSC learned that all machines in Green Bay were ESS machines and were connected to a secret, hidden Wi-Fi access point at the Grand Hyatt hotel, which was the location used by the City of Green Bay on the day of the 2020 Presidential election. The OSC discovered the Wi-Fi, machines, and ballots were controlled by a single individual who was not a government employee but an agent of a special interest group operating in Wisconsin.

Wow. So one guy hidden at the Grand Hyatt Hotel controlled Green Bay’s election from his room? What is that guy’s name? According to the report: his name is Michael Spitzer Rubenstein. Why was a lawyer from Brooklyn in control of an election in Wisconsin?

That’s a good question. Let’s begin, though, with an explanation of why it’s been so hard to get any good questions answered at all. Just take a look at your calendar: it’s March 2022. The retired Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who conducted this Special Counsel investigation would remind all of us, first, that we’re talking about companies that are hiding their tracks.

The OSC began a comprehensive investigation of voting machines in Wisconsin. As part of that investigation, subpoenas were sent to Dominion, ESS, and Command Central, LLC, a Dominion reseller and servicer. The information sought included information about who, when, where, and what updates the machines were provided.

The OSC learned that one machine company representative stated that the voting machines were “wiped” during updates, meaning they did not retain federally required voter data.

It was discovered that Command Central, LLC, received images of cast ballots on election night using the internet. Command Central is alleged to be holding actual ballots cast on election night at its offices in Minnesota in violation of Wisconsin law.

The OSC was not able to complete this portion of its investigation, however.

As of the date of this Report, the voting machine companies have refused to comply with the OSC’s legislative subpoenas, and have provided no data. The OSC considers this investigation incomplete but ongoing.

The OSC also sought information about the machines in Wisconsin used on election night from the clerks. The clerks either did not possess the data sought by the OSC or refused to provide it, with Green Bay and Madison insinuating that providing secure voting machine data to the OSC would somehow compromise election integrity. In other words, these cities claim that it is impossible to verify the integrity of the voting machines because doing that would jeopardize the integrity of both the machines and future elections.

One of the functions of Mr. Spitzer Rubenstein’s service as “on-site contact” was to coordinate with the contractor staff at the Hyatt Regency and KI Convention Center to set up wireless networks for Election Day operations. At Mr. Spitzer Rubenstein’s instruction, there were three WiFi networks available. One was the general conference facility public network that would be available to members of the press and others. That network was password-protected, but the password was widely available. A second password-protected WiFi network was created for Central Count staff. Mr. Spitzer Rubenstein also directed that a third WiFi network be established, but that network was to be hidden and it was not to be password-protected. Spitzer Rubenstein also ensured that “both networks reach[ed] [his] hotel room on the 8th floor” (App. 262-266).

Our elections can be hijacked because the electronic voting machines are hooked up to the internet. You know: the simple truth that your elected officials keep insisting is not true — and which is now indisputably true. Which brings us to the next truth: your elected officials are lying to you and they’re probably lying to you because the only way they got elected was by using corrupt voting systems.

There’s another blockbuster development mentioned in the report as well. The retired Wisconsin judge got his hands on some interesting evidence.

The OSC’s investigation discovered the use of a ballot tracking and harvestingapplication in Wisconsin. An extensive amount of time and effort went into this portion of the investigation. The OSC became attuned to the possibility of an application when reviewing email exchanges between the Zuckerberg 5 and third parties. This involved tracking applications in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

The OSC discovered ballot tracking programs in both Georgia and Pennsylvania.
The OSC was able to locate and identify the developer of both programs in those States. The OSC obtained the source code for the Pennsylvania application. Ultimately, that data and source code would not prove to be helpful to discovering information about the Wisconsin application.

It’s official: they cheated.

by Kane

[First, it s NOT a secret report. This is the investigation by Michigan computer scientist J. Halderman and a judge sealed the document to keep the report from the republic. In his investigation, Halderman documented the fraud capabilites of the Dominion voting machine which is why Dominion is blocking the results from the 'most secure election in the country's history'  - ED]

EPOCH TIMES

Top officials at a U.S. federal cybersecurity agency are urging a judge not to authorize the release of a report that analyzes Dominion Voting Systems equipment in Georgia, arguing doing so could assist hackers trying to “undermine election security.” [or prevent anyone from finding out that the 2020 election was already HACKED! - ED] he Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was recently provided an unredacted copy of the report, which was prepared by J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society.

The report discusses “potential vulnerabilities in Dominion ImageCast X ballot marking devices,” or electronic voting devices, according to the government.

 While CISA supports public disclosure of any vulnerabilities with election equipment, allowing the release of the report at this point “increases the risk that malicious actors may be able to exploit any vulnerabilities and threaten election security,” government lawyers said in a Feb. 10 filing.

The case was brought by good-government groups and voters who say the lack of paper ballots undermines the voting process. U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, an Obama nominee overseeing the case, was urged by CISA to reject attempts to release a rdacted version of Halderman’s report for now. 

CISA officials want to review the information in the report and help Dominion resolve the vulnerabilities identified before the report is released. [How can that be done? [Dominion doesn't want anyone looking inside their machines. Remember the voting machines were invented by three Venezuellans with the intent to steal elections.  - ED]

 They said they weren’t able to provide a date by which they’ll be finished. [You can bet it will be after the Nov 2024 election, if aver !. - ED]

Totenberg must weigh the request against the wishes of Georgia Secretary State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican and one of the defendants, who called in late January for the release to happen immediately.

John Poulos, Dominion’s CEO and president, said in a statement released by Raffensperger’s office that Halderman’s review lacked “a holistic approach,” adding that Dominion “supports all efforts to bring real facts and evidence forward to defend the integrity of our machines and the credibility of Georgia’s elections.” [Ha! Ha!. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you - ED].

Plaintiffs, including the Coalition for Good Governance, also support the release of the report, David Cross, one of their lawyers, confirmed to The Epoch Times.

 The plaintiffs said in a filing before a copy was sent to CISA that the agency should get a copy and begin its evaluation process, but that the evaluation “should not unreasonably delay the public disclosure of the report, which must be promptly disclosed to Georgia state and county election officials, and filed on the public docket, so that public officials can secure the upcoming May primary elections.”

They asked Totenberg to order them to file a redacted version of the report on the docket, which would make it accessible to the public, no later than March 4.